Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Plaintiffs,
v. ORDER I
N
Defendants.
Before the court is defendant Patriot Mutual Insurance Co.'s motion for
summary judgment.
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In considering a
motion for summary judgment, the court is required to consider only the portions of the
record referred to and the material facts set forth in the parties' Rule 56(h) statements.
~ Iohnson v. McNeil, 2002 ME 99, <]I 8, 800 A.2d 702, 704. The facts must be
considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. Thus, for purposes
of summary judgment, any factual disputes must be resolved against the movant.
material facts to the statement of material facts submitted by Patriot. Plaintiffs did,
however, submit an affidavit attaching a letter from a Patriot adjuster. Plaintiffs also
made an argument in their memorandum to the effect that it was unclear why Patriot
had chosen to use certain policy language. This elicited a reply statement of material
facts from Patriot (even though no opposing statement of material facts had been
submitted), along with affidavits from the adjuster involved and from a Patriot vice
president stating that the relevant language had not been drafted by Patriot but came
from copyrighted forms used throughout the industry. This in turn elicited a motion
In the court's view, because plaintiffs did not submit an opposing statement of
material facts, the statements in Patriot's initial statement of material facts are admitted
for purposes of this motion. In the absence of an opposing statement of material facts
setting forth what facts (if any) are disputed, the court will not consider the adjuster's
material facts was submitted, the court will disregard the reply statement of material
facts submitted by Patriot. The court agrees with the general principle that a party
moving for summary judgment cannot support its motion with new material submitted
for the first time with its reply papers. However, because motions to strike are not
permitted in this context, see Rule 56(0, the court will not grant plaintiffs' motion to
strike. 2
motorcycle owned by his wife when he was involved in a collision with a motor vehicle
on September 5, 2006. The driver of the vehicle was underinsured. At the time in
question, Patriot had issued a personal package policy to Frank Stepnick and his wife,
1 If plaintiffs wished to argue that there were disputed facts as to ambiguity, they should have
2 Finally, to the extent that plaintiffs are arguing that Patriot drafted (as opposed to adopted)
the language in question, the court agrees that the record is silent on that point.
2
the provisions of which will be discussed below and which included uninsured and
insurance policy issued by Progressive Insurance Co., which is also a defendant in this
case.
The Patriot Insurance policy contained Personal Auto Declarations in which the
Stepnicks are identified as drivers and two insured vehicles are identified: a 2002
Pontiac Grand Prix and a 1999 Dodge Caravan. The motorcycle is not listed in the
Patriot policy.
The Patriot policy contains various definitions, including the following definition
endorsement which replaces the original Part C of the policy. Policy at 25-27. It
The question is whether this provision is ambiguous becaused the word "you" is
not in quotation marks in the language of the exclusion. If the definition of "you"
applies, then coverage is excluded because the policy would exclude claims for bodily
3 The parties have sequentially hand numbered the pages of the policy. Page references in this
order refer to those numbers.
3
injury sustained by Frank Stepnick while occupying a motorcycle owned by his spouse
but not insured under the Patriot policy. If the definition of "you" is not applicable
because of the absence of quotation marks, then Section A.I of the exclusion does not
apply because Frank Stepnick sustained bodily injury while on a motorcycle that he
Looking back at the definition section (Policy, page 8), the court notes that the
definition of "you" is expressly stated to apply "throughout this policy." After defining
"you," "your," "we," "us," and "our,,,4 the policy then provides as follows:
In the court's view, this eliminates any ambiguity and advises a reader of the
policy that "you" and "your" are always defined terms, whether or not they appear in
quotation marks, and that other defined terms will appear in quotation marks when
Accordingly, the court concludes that the policy is not ambiguous and that the
exclusion applies to both Frank Stepnick's claim and that of his wife.
dismissing the complaint as against it is granted. This order does not affect plaintiffs'
claim against defendant Progressive Insurance Co. The clerk is directed to incorporate
5The court also has not located an instance in the body of the policy in which "you" appears in
quotation marks. If it did, it could be argued that the policy draws a distinction between you
4
DATED: October I ,2007
Thomas D. Warren
Justice, Superior Court
: COURTS
nd County
DX 287
Ie 0411 2-0287
COURTS
j County
( 287
! 04112-0287
)F COURTS
'land County
Box 287
:line 04112-0287